@Gillitrut's banner p

Gillitrut

Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC 

				
User ID: 863


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gillitrut


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 863


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Even granting the original conspiracy to break in was an intelligence community operation (a notion I find highly implausible compared to alternate explanations) I still don't see how that exonerates Nixon. "The intelligence community orchestrated a criminal conspiracy among high level Republicans and cabinet members therefore Nixon had to use the powers of the presidency to corruptly obstruct that investigation!" Uhh, no he didn't. Indeed, as far as I know there is very little to tie Nixon himself to the break in. Most of his involvement was in the post-break-in cover up.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So I watched the Carlson segment and I don't understand what the segment has to do with what was corrupt about Watergate and what was corrupt about Nixon's actions, specifically. As best I can tell the reason people think Nixon's actions with respect to Watergate were corrupt is because he tried to obstruct a federal investigation into a break in at the DNC headquarters when it became clear that investigation was going to implicate high level members of his administration (including his Attorney General John Mitchell) in the crime. This culminated with Nixon firing his second Attorney General (Elliot Richardson) and Deputy Attorney General (William Ruckelshaus) when they refused to fire the Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox) who was investigating the Watergate break in, in what came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre.


So, how is Bob Woodward's status as former Naval intelligence relevant? What does Nixon's meeting with Helms have to do with anything? Nixon's meeting with Helms happened months after the break in. Why does it matter that Woodward's source was the Deputy Director of the FBI?


Carlson's monologue is big on free association (CIA! JFK! FBI! COINTELPRO!) but pretty light on actually connecting any of these facts to any of the facts of Watergate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a wikipedia article about the course that talks a little about its development. The College Board also has their own page about it that link to articles from last August by outlets like Time and the New York Times that describe some of the curricula at a high level. From an interview with a teacher involved in a pilot program for the course:




Mr. Williams-Clark, who teaches at Florida State University Schools, a laboratory charter, said he sticks to state standards for history and literature and was not worried about falling afoul of laws that aim to restrict education about race.






“I think people need to understand that critical race theory is not an element of this course,” Mr. Williams-Clark said. “As far as the 1619 Project, this course is not that either. There might be elements that cross over. But this course is a comprehensive, mainstream course about the African American experience.”




From CBS (quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr.):




Henry-Louis Gates, Jr., one of the country's foremost experts on African American history, helped develop the AP African American Studies program. He told TIME that the class "is not CRT. It's not the [New York Times'] 1619 Project. It is a mainstream, rigorously vetted, academic approach to a vibrant field of study, one half a century old in the American academy, and much older, of course, in historically Black colleges and universities."






In a statement to CBS News, the College Board said it has been working on this course for nearly a decade, and that it is "designed to offer high school students an inspiring, evidence-based introduction to African American Studies."




...




In a statement, Trevor Packer, the senior vice president of AP and Instruction at the College Board, said the class "will introduce a new generation of students to the amazingly rich cultural, artistic, and political contributions of African Americans."






"We hope it will broaden the invitation to Advanced Placement and inspire students with a fuller appreciation of the American story," he added.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, how often does the situation occur where (1) everyone in the group has to eat the same meal and (2) their food preferences are such that the food everyone could eat is the empty set? My impression is that progressives are happy to come up with a general guideline (respect people's food preferences) and then let groups come up with ad hoc solutions when the guideline proves to be problematic. Maybe in some cases different people get different meals. Maybe in some cases some people bring their own food.


I agree people who substitute claims of allergies for claims of preferences can be annoying, and I'm confident even progressives would hit a limit of patience when dealing with such a person.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
One possible problem is that conversations or discussions generally require mutual consent of the parties engaged in the discussion. If you don't care about the hypothetical feelings of people who aren't present, but your interlocutors do, it seems likely to me they will decline to engage in that conversation with you. Now, maybe you would prefer they agreed with your preferred conversational norms but there is not really a good way to force those norms on other people. If you want to have a discussion on some topic with particular individuals you need conversational norms that are acceptable to all those individuals. Maybe for some topics and some individuals this is impossible, in which case you need to find alternate people to discuss with.




If there are no subjects that cannot be questioned in the quest for truth, then that applies to the sacred cows of the left as well as the right.




Of course.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Much more so for red tribe/conservative types than blue tribe/progressive types, in my experience. The latter often perceive that archetype as just being an asshole.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think there are a few different things going on in the social interaction you describe.


I think you're giving the average trans-supporting progressive too much credit (or maybe expecting too much). I doubt they have a fully worked out theory of gender and its metaphysics, epistemics, etc. I'm someone fairly steeped in trans academic literature and I'm not sure I do! Their understanding of trans issues is not necessarily part of a fully theorized conception of gender, its more likely a surface understanding that they use to get by with supporting their friend. The purpose of the beliefs isn't necessarily having a complete theory of gender, it's understanding what their friend needs to feel and be supported, because they care about their friend.


The social context of the discussion is also important. Imagine you were at the gym with some friends. One of your friends is going to try for a new one rep max, they're going to lift some amount of weight they never have before. So all your other friends are hyping your one friend up, telling them they can do this, they've got it, etc. Then you interject with a comment describing how, based on previous lifts, they probably can't do it and may injure themselves. Your comment may be true and correct but I can see how people would think the comment was unwelcome. The conversation that was occurring had a particular purpose that was not necessarily saying true things, but hyping your friend up and making them feel better. Similarly if the purpose of the conversation involving your trans friend was to comfort or support them, I can see how a comment calling into question those acts may be unwelcome. This isn't to say such comments are never appropriate. If you were having a dispassionate discussion with your friend about what their one rep max should be, or about how or whether to support trans individuals, such comments may be appropriate but it is very much a social context thing. I'm sure this can be a frustrating experience, especially if you rarely or never have the conversations on topics you want to have that are relevant to those conversations you do have.




It's nearly impossible to penetrate this kind of love bombing with unpleasant truths. And on the meta level it incentivizes the exact grievance porn that I so often perceive of the left. Progressive type people see themselves as helping the downtrodden and it's deep in their self conception that they're the type of person that helps the downtrodden, but they've also formed an immune system against even questioning claims of being downtrodden. From my perspective they're doing the equivalent of giving a kid as much sugar as they ask for, each extra spoon full is the kindest path in the moment but it's a road to diabetes paved with good intentions.




It seems a bit hyperbolic to say progressives have an immune system to claims of being downtrodden. I can think of several groups that progressives would (and do) not believe when they claim to be downtrodden. Rather, progressives may be too focused on claims of being downtrodden based in history as opposed to the present. Though, I believe most groups progressive regard as downtrodden today have a pretty good case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To perhaps bring this back to more familiar Culture War ground I think the desire to accommodate dietary restrictions springs from the same place as the desire to use preferred pronouns: the perception that it's the courteous thing to do, that it would be rude to do otherwise. Underlying this is a belief that society ought to change in certain ways to accommodate individuals living their lives the way they would prefer to, and that we as individuals have some responsibility to create that space for others. Exactly what we should accommodate in what circumstances is a question on which underlying theories differ but I think this is the general motivating principle.


ETA:


After reading some other replies I'm wondering how much of a left/right divide on social issues is about who, when, and how has an obligation to accommodate others. It seems to me right-coded non-libertarian positions tend towards the individual having an obligation to alter their behaviors to conform with wider society while more left-coded positions tend towards society (really other people) altering so as to accommodate individuals.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I definitely think some people's dietary restrictions have the form you describe, as being some kind of personal belief about the rightness or wrongness of eating certain things (vegetarianism and veganism seem like the obvious example). On the other hand some things (like allergies) don't really have this character. If my friend has a peanut allergy so severe that eating them will cause anaphylactic shock and possibly death, that seems qualitatively different to something like veganism. When I am accommodating someone's allergies like this it's because I don't want to maybe kill them! Which seems like a very reasonable thing to do, and their request seems quite different in character to anything that could be called a "holy act", nor does their motivation for the request seem comparable to religious requests.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think I've changed my position but my commitment definitely feels more intense than previously. Reading accounts like what happened to Kaitlyn Joshua (Or Marlena Stell or Nancy Davis) make me think the United States having our own Savita Halappanavar moment is inevitable and it will have been totally preventable. Hell you can read accounts of non-pregnant women with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer being denied access to medication for their condition because that medication can also be used to induce abortion.


The steady drumbeat of pain and suffering of women due to increased restrictions on access to abortion and its means reinforces my desire to see all such laws ended.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I rather think both sticks are applicable.


Trump plainly lied about compliance with a lawfully issued subpoena and also mishandled classified documents. The declassification argument is an entirely post-hoc defense that was only raised after Trump's defiance of a subpoena became public knowledge. Trump has repeatedly had the opportunity to raise the declassification defense in court, including in the special master proceedings that he requested, and has consistently declined to assert that any particular document was actually declassified. The most Trump, via his lawyers, has been willing to assert is that he could have declassified them while President (which no one disputes) and this fact obliges the Department of Justice to treat the documents as if he had actually declassified them (false).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If the argument of Trump's classification authority (that he could not commit illegal storage of the classified materials because the President is who decides what is and is not classified, and Presidents have an acknowledged history of deciding what documents to take with them) is taken as legitimate, then the NARA demands for documentation, and FBI decision to raid to enforce, are illegitimate as a consequence because the NARA doesn't have a right to documents.




This is not correct. Subpoenas are issued all the time by the government for documents which the individual being subpoenaed has a lawful right to possess. I suspect most of the time when the federal government is subpoenaing something from someone, the individual in question has a lawful right to possess it.


In any case, if Trump thought the subpoena was issued unlawfully, or was unlawfully overbroad, the correct thing to do is to go to a federal court and ask them to either quash or narrow the subpoena, not to lie about complying with it. This is something Trump has done with other subpoenas (such as ones issued by the House when he was President) so why isn't that what he did here? If he thought the subpoena was unlawfully issued because he had declassified the documents in question, why did he turn over any docs, rather than go to a federal court and seek to have the subpoena quashed on those grounds? It seems to me a much more parsimonious explanation is that Trump knew the documents were not his property (as confirmed by the 11th Circuit) and that he was required to turn them over and he thought he could deceive the federal government into believing he had done so, without actually doing so.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


In fact, most people would seriously distrust a person who told them, hey I care about family members and non-family members equally.




This seems like a strange assertion. If I told a stranger "I care about you as if you were family" I think most people would think it was a compliment!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I have many objections to the OP apart from the one I articulated in my original post. Ones other posters have articulated at length. But I expected those other positions would be articulated and so thought I would share an objection I had that I expect others would not.




And your objection is to the vanilla observation that most people feel an affinity for their relatives? Because of your personal experience, which you admit is highly unrepresentative?




I object more to the notion that people feel an affinity for people of their own ethnicity than family. I might agree my lack of familial affinity is "highly" unrepresentative but I am much less sure about ethnic affinity. I'll also note OP has provided as much evidence for his generalization about ethnic and familial affinity over the groups he generalizes over as I have for mine (i.e. none) while receiving approximately none of the same pushback on that point.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How is Trump's declassification authority relevant for his lying about compliance with a subpoena?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes! I think it is quite likely that others feel quite different on this question than I do, but the fact that others feel differently doesn't make me feel differently.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This argument does not seem intuitive to me because I do not feel any special love for my family qua family, let alone people who share my ethnicity. Definitely I do not think I have any special moral obligations towards my family or members of my ethnicity that I do not have for others.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Let me see if I understand correctly.


In Biden's case the staffers who discovered the documents immediately alerted NARA to their existence, turned the documents over, and are cooperating with the governments investigation into how the documents came to be there.


In Trump's case NARA learned Trump had documents bearing classification markings after some were included in boxes of presidential records Trump returned to NARA. NARA told Trump they were going to inform the FBI of the classified docs. Trump asks NARA not to tell the FBI, but produces no further documents. Eventually NARA informs the FBI. The FBI gets a subpoena for all documents at Mar-a-Lago bearing a certain set of classification markings. Trump turns over some documents and (falsely) certifies that those documents are all the ones in his possession that are covered by the subpoena. The FBI, by means not fully public yet, develop probable cause to believe Trump has further documents covered by the subpoena which he has not produced. A magistrate judge issues a warrant and the FBI execute that warrant. In the course of executing the warrant the FBI discover their probable cause was correct and Trump had lied about compliance with the subpoena.


Now, maybe some very damning facts will come out in the Biden case. It is a developing situation after all. But on the basis of the facts I know so far the differential response by law enforcement and related entities seem totally explicable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am happy to believe that natural immunity reduces rates of myocarditis induced by reinfection. The problem is your claim relies not merely on this fact, but also on it being of a particular magnitude. Specifically that the risk of myocarditis from reinfection is lower than the risk of myocarditis from getting the vaccine. What is the evidence for this relative magnitude in reduction?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You may be interested in Epistemic Learned Helplessness.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like "the government can ban you from accessing a website" and "website operators are obliged to let you access their site" are quite different legal questions. When I hear discussions about Twitter being a public square it seems much more in the vein of objecting to being banned from Twitter by Twitter, rather than the government.


Also not clear to me what traditional governmental function Twitter is providing that would be analogous for Pruneyard.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
More like "when a term is defined in a statute it has the meaning that is defined in the statute for the purposes of the statute and when a term is more a term of art  it has its meaning as a term of art." If you think the word "public" always means the same thing in every context I think you need to understand language better.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I kind of feel like there is? Or at least there seems like a tension between the private property rights of the owners of the square and the presumed public right of access.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not sure "public square" is intended to be a statutory or legal term when used this way, like "public accomodation" is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like one crucial distinction between Twitter and the "public square" is that Twitter is not "public" (as in owned by the public or government or similar entity).